User talk:Scientelensia/Archive4

2022 World Cup

So now you’ve been reverted again. Please, discuss your huge and controversial additions first before pushing them into the article. Thanks. Rennespzn (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it controversial? Do you perchance take offence to viewpoints which are not American or Western, or is there another reason? I would like to work together civilly and would recommend that neither of us be rude to each other. Scientelensia (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

International non-governmental organization assess the human rights record of Qatar aren't American or Western. Furthermore, I would argue that American and Western government get along with the Qatari government better than various non-governmental organizations that analyze Qatari persecution of minorities and dissidents. Rennespzn (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t quite see your point. What exact objection do you have to the content I propose to add?

If it is the wording, feel free to change it before re-adding it. Thanks. Scientelensia (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead then, I’ll try to fix if someone is wrong. Rennespzn (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I am currently very busy but when I find time I will be on it.

Just to be clear, do you suggest I make a new section under controversies or outside of it? Scientelensia (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a new subsection called something like "response to criticism" can work. Rennespzn (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good plan. Scientelensia (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I will do that in a few days. Scientelensia (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, I'm looking forward to contributing if there's a need to. Rennespzn (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

) Sorry, I will get into it but as as of right now I am not focusing on too large edits as I am busy. Thanks so much though, I will let you know. Scientelensia (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2022 FIFA World Cup into Orientalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. Just to say that the attribution is mine though. Scientelensia (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Naglaa Walker

Hello, Scientelensia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Naglaa Walker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Roberto Firmino

You have been told before - do NOT move commentary about his playing style from the 'playing style' section to the lede. GiantSnowman 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? I can cite many articles that do this if you wish. Please read WP:OOP with concentration. Scientelensia (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As you have demanded, I have moved this info from the lede back to the ‘Style of play section’. While you may have taken offence to my moving this info to the lede, this was not a reason for you to reverse my other edits, which you must consider individually. I believe these edits are assuredly useful as they more effectively document Firmino’s career and add facts to his biography. Please be more careful with your reverts in future, and remove only the content which you find to be offensive. Scientelensia (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - and your other edits are WP:POV. GiantSnowman 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect and consideration, I do not believe that you are right. By all means, debate my new reformed additions on the talk page, and please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OOP&redirect=no. Scientelensia (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to İlkay Gündoğan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Unexplained removal of 2022/23 FA Cup from honours section. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I’m sorry! Honestly I didn’t even realise that I did that. Scientelensia (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I must have highlighted the text to copy over the reference and the neat hyperlink and then accidentally deleted it. Scientelensia (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been positively contributing to this page however, and my mistake was an accidental one. Scientelensia (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

İlkay Gündoğan

In response to your comment here, I would advise that you assume good faith and not accuse other editors of "destructive edits" because you happen to disagree with them. By stating that I should "instead seek to enact constructive ones which improve the article", you are insinuating that I am intentionally trying to cause harm to the article. Such accusations could be interpreted as personal attacks. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Mattythewhite (Mattythewhite),

I am very sorry if I caused you offence or if my comments caused harm to you. I merely meant that you might alter/adapt the text, which I believe to be relevant as detailed in my edit summary, rather than dismiss it and delete it. Firstly, I do not claim that you did this “intentionally” (as you say), thus why I warned you of it rather than considered other methods – I merely suggest that perhaps you do not see the worth of the content as others do (with all due respect). Secondly, I do not “accuse you” of destructive edits because I “happen to disagree” with you (and here you are insinuating that my edits are based entirely on opinion and not on principles, the word “happen” suggesting that my thought process is random and unbalanced), but I disagree with your deletion of clearly sourced and relevant content. You must (I hope) see that for a midfielder, braces can be highly notable, as can the process of signing a new contract amid speculation – and I hope that you see that the sources were from the BBC, a reputable site. I just do not understand why you often delete valid text rather than striving to better the article by altering it or rewording it (as you mostly do very successfully) – this may discourage even the most experienced of editors from trying to contribute articles which you often visit – and to be perfectly honest while I know you are an acclaimed editor who has been on the platform for a long time I do not see why you repeatedly overrule people when they may be right. Once again, I reiterate that I am really very sorry for any offence my words may have caused, and I wish you a good rest of the day.

Warm regards,

From Scientelensia (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I still don't think we should be including transfer speculation, and would instead wait until the contract situation is resolved. The sentence about the goals against Everton links in well with the following sentence about his performances helping his team win the title so I can roll with that.

A couple of problematic changes to wikilinks to highlight: you removed theilink to "club captain" when reverting me, and added a link to the second instance of "2022–23 Premier League". Mattythewhite (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry for the stuff you said in your second paragraph.

So I will re-add relevant info after the transfer/contract saga is completed. If that is ok? Scientelensia (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We could remove the contact stuff for now and re add it later. Scientelensia (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Kane, Benzema, Ancelotti

Hey. That info that Ancelotti is interested in Kane after Benzema leaves is something for a blog or whatever. We should only include that if a deal goes through (not sure it will). Kante4 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I agree with you in some cases but sometimes when footballers are subject to interest from other clubs, this interest should be documented on a footballer’s Wikipedia page. I think it demonstrates interest for Kane from other clubs. For me, the information does warrant inclusion as it shows, how many clubs have been targeting Kane again, and it will in the future (when Kane decides to stay or go) provide context on Kane’s decision to stay or go. Surely you agree with that?

I wouldn’t say the info is from a blog, as it has come from reputable sites such as the BBC.

Notable examples of transfer rumours being included on a page are provided beneath, for me, they show that what I have done is perfectly acceptable.

Ronaldinho#Flamengo – Ronaldinho

Paul Gascoigne#1987–1988: Maintained performances and transfer rumours – Paul Gascoigne

Cristiano Ronaldo#Sporting CP– Cristiano Ronaldo

David Beckham#Manchester United – David Beckham (see ‘1999–2000: Another Championship’ section)

I hope that these very high profile examples demonstrate to you my point effectively. What do you think? Can we re add the information please? I know you have done great work on lots of pages, but I believe my idea to be right in this case.

All the best of luck for editing in the future :)

From Scientelensia (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Also I responded here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlo_Ancelotti&action=history Scientelensia (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I simply disagree with the inclusion. Kane was a target for Bayern a year or two back and many more clubs before and after. His page would look big if all of that is included. Those names go around to clubs all the time and this is an Excyclopedia, where we add stuff that happens and not things like, it may happen or "look, Real is interested in him". So, if it happens, feel free to add the pre-stuff to the signing but until then it should be left as it is. Kante4 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the difference is there that Bayern’s manager did not specifically ask for Kane. Surely it is relevant that he was asked for by Ancelotti? Also, what do you think of the examples I provided?

I see your point, but an article being big, if carefully-chosen information is added, is never a problem if well done.

From Scientelensia (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Normmaly i don't care about the other stuff (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but in CR's case he left Sporting after the season so that is fine. Ronaldinho also moved and there were reports which teams wanted him, nothing wrong. Gascoigne also changed the team and the background is good as it is. So this is a huge difference because Kane is still at Tottenham. The Beckham stuff should be removed in my eyes as nothing happenned. If Kane leaves to Madrid, those things can be added but until then, we should wait. Kante4 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Let’s say that when he makes a decision on his future, we can re-add the info to add context on the decisions that he had to make. Do you agree?

From Scientelensia (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's okay. Kante4 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Cool 😎 Scientelensia (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Highly disrespectful editing behaviour.

I've started that conversation, thought I loop you in, simply because you tagged thank you on both of my reverses. Regards. If you wanted to add something to it, it is up to you. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Govvy

Thank you for this! I agree with you and will try to look into the matter and see if there’s anything I can add.

Best regards,

From Scientelensia (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jürgen Klopp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabio Carvalho.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of genocide

I merged the article and left a reply here. You had given much weight to a few authors who don't seem to represent general scholarly or political perspectives, some known exclusively for courting controversy with their positions, which I left out of the summary. You might start a discussion on that talk page about sources you think are appropriate to include.

We tend not to have articles about allegations of genocide, of which there are many. That sort of extreme language is inevitably part of persuasive geopolitical campaigns, radicalization campaigns, and the like, so it's worth taking extra care in covering those topics with balance and without giving undue notability to a fringe perspective.

For these reasons among others Wikipedia is not a place to publish original synthesis, and we always have to be wary of citogenesis; many people would like to be able to reference WP as demonstration that their preferred concept or belief is in fact common knowledge. – SJ + 20:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I believe that rather than merging the article, you can add more sources which you see as more reliable to improve the article, thus enacting a constructive edit as opposed to a destructive edit.

The view that the violence against the Palestinians is a genocide is not inherently true, nor is it presented as such in the article. It is instead called a “view”, and thus not something that is objectively true. In any case, we should make the language as neutral as possible and thus if someone is ‘radicalised’ from this language it can be considered as not the interest of Wikipedia editors.

Moreover, these allegations of genocide do not come wholly from me as you suggest, but from many sources across the web. I would like to state that if a view is not Pro-Israel, that does not mean that it is anti-Semitic. To dismiss pro-Palestinian views in this way (by calling those with this view anti-Semites) is cruel, wrong and contemptuous.

If you wish, it would be good for a page representing more of the other side of the argument, e.g ‘Genocide against Israelis’, to be created. Perhaps you could concern yourself with this.

Read more here: Talk:Israel and apartheid#This merge is repellent.

Sincerely, Scientelensia (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at Genocide against Palestinians

Please remember that WP:1RR applies to all articles within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed. The definition of revert is The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert; at Genocide against Palestinians you have made multiple reverts in the past 24 hours, including:

1. 16:24, 13 October 2023 and 16:29, 13 October 2023, which reverted this edit and this edit respectively.
2. 15:18, 14 October 2023, which reverted this edit

Please be careful to stick to a single revert per 24 hours in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course, I forgot about this matter.

Apologies, Scientelensia (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Scientelensia. Thank you.) Drsmoo (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Only warning for disruption in PIA topic area

Hi, Scientelensia. I have closed the AE thread about you with the following warning, which will be logged at WP:AELOG/2023:

Scientelensia is given a logged, only warning for disruption in the PIA topic area. Any further comments like the ones at issue here, or other PIA disruption, may lead to a topic ban, block, or other sanction without further warning.

Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is perfectly clear. I have not issued any offensive comments and have conducted myself well and constructively in such areas, and have refrained from getting angry at those with little logic in their arguments.

Happy editing,

From Scientelensia (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Levivich

Your recent edits in this topic area are not good.

• Special:Diff/1183385990 - There is so much wrong with this I'm lazy to even go through it all. First, WP:ONUS. Second, WP:INFOBOXUSE. Third, you know damn well we cannot call it a genocide in wikivoice. That's why the article has "accusation" in the title. So you think it's OK to put genocide in wikivoice in an infobox? Seriously? Fourth, you're going to list perps? And death counts? Are you trolling us? You're very involved in recent discussions about the use of "genocide" -- you know better than this.
• Special:Diff/1183482131 - What are you thinking, adding a headshot of an individual WP:BLP in an article about genocide accusation? Do you have any sources that say this particular individual is responsible for the genocide? Imagine putting a picture of someone who said something racist in the article about Slavery! Damnit, this isn't like the Holocaust where you can put a picture of Hitler or Eichmann or something.
• Special:Diff/1183482741 - Now you put a picture of two BLPs... plus it's a meeting of Israeli and US officials. Like what, you think nobody is going to notice this? You can't suggest that the US is supporting Israel in committing a genocide in this way.
• Use edit summaries!

I don't have time to look through more of your edits. Improve your ability to edit neutrally in line with our policies, or go edit a different topic area. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me defend myself.

• WP:ONUS denotes that consensus must be achieved. You, or one person, are not the only one required for a consensus. Many saw the edit and did not remove it, only you did. Secondly, I admit that I should not have called it a genocide in the wiki voice – however, here you do not need to reiterate your point so many times in such a manner. I did not “know damn well”. This was just a simple mistake which you could have rectified without fuss and without removing lots of useful info. What is wrong with recording the numbers of those who are dead on a page about a potential genocide. I would say that in fact this is useful. I am not “trolling you”. Your tone is extremely rude. I suggest you strike many of your comments.
• Never said he was responsible for the genocide! This is an example of negative Israeli rhetoric, as summarised. Your accusations are really shocking. Please don’t swear on my page (“Damnit”). Your conduct is questionable here, and it’s possible that is this is a contentious topic it just angered you too much. Not sure.
• The picture I used was the best landscape one of Yoav Gallant. It merely happened to have a photo of a US Official, who I have never heard as as caught up in controversy on this matter. Landscape so the text would fit around it. I am not suggesting “that the US is supporting Israel in committing a genocide in this way”. Your accusations are very insulting.

You are removing lots of content. If you don’t like the way in which it is presented, move it elsewhere! Make a ‘Death count’ section, or ‘Statistics’, or add the information elsewhere. I don’t want to have to take this further. Scientelensia (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)